Refill bottles that fit into dispensers as part of a liquid dispensing system are well known in the art. In particular it is desirable to configure the shape of the bottle and/or the closure on the bottle such that the bottle and closure assembly fits into the dispenser housing as a “keyed fit.” This is important for at least two reasons. First, there is marketing incentive to have an exclusive shape for a bottle/closure assembly such that a competitor's refill bottle will not fit into the marketed dispenser. Secondly, there is sometimes safety issues when different liquid compositions are dispensed through the same dispensing device and a “lock-and-key” fit between the refill bottle and the dispenser housing helps avoid these issues. For example, a keyed fit ensures the correct refill is placed into the dispenser, and/or a keyed fit may mechanically or electrically trigger a particular dispensing event when the dispenser “recognizes” a particular bottle and/or closure configuration on the refill unit. Such dispensing systems having complementary fit between the shape of the refill bottle/closure assembly and the shape of the dispenser housing are exemplified by the following references: U.S. Pat. No. 5,456,297 (Crossdale, et al.); U.S. Pat. No. 5,682,930 (Crossdale); and U.S. Application Publication No. 2010/0147894 (Reimann, et al.). This art is assigned to Diversey, and was developed for the institutional cleaning market. An example of a keyed fit between refill and dispenser in a dispensing system for hand washing and hygiene is disclosed in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/010129 (Lewis, et al., assigned to the Dial Corporation) and in U.S. Pat. No. 8,020,733 (Snodgrass, assigned to UltraClenz, LLC).
Another problem with marketing dispensing systems comprising refill bottles and dispensers is that the end user is often tempted to refill the bottle with their own liquids, such as their own soaps and detergents. This is prevalent in the institutional cleaning market where end users find novel ways to cut access holes into the bottom of inverted refill bottles, or they unscrew or otherwise pry off the closure from a refill bottle in order to refill the bottle with the liquid of their choosing. This practice by the end user circumvents the supplier's livelihood since the supplier's profits usually come from the selling of the refill bottles and not the dispensing equipment. Indeed, at least in the institutional cleaning market where the dispensing equipment is often large, complicated and expensive, the dispenser is often loaned to the customer with the expectation that the customer in possession of the dispensing equipment will purchase refill bottles only from the supplier loaning the equipment.
Because of the likelihood of tampering by the end user, and also as a way to mitigate chemical exposure, suppliers have used “tamper-proof” configurations for closures on refill bottles. In the dispensing system context, the ideal non-refillable refill unit may comprise a bottle for liquids having a closure that simply cannot be removed from the neck of the bottle. Indeed, in many dispensing systems where the refill bottle is inverted into the dispenser housing, there isn't a need to remove the closure unless trying to override the supplier's system and refill the bottle. Inverting a typical refill bottle in a dispenser usually triggers a conduit element, such as a spigot, to penetrate a membrane or slit valve, or open a dispensing valve provided in the closure, without the need to remove the closure from the neck of the bottle. Such non-removable closure configurations have been known for many years and include the familiar “ratchet” structure on the neck of a bottle that engage with teeth configured on the inside circumference of the closure skirt, (also referred to as “anti-rotation” lock). These one way ratchet systems prevent removal of the closure from the bottle and hence deter refilling of the bottle with a substitute composition. Presumably the closure and/or the bottle neck would be completely destroyed if the end user succeeds in prying the closure off against the direction of the ratcheting teeth. These types of refill bottles are intended to be inverted in the dispenser, used until empty, then thrown away and replaced with a new, full refill bottle.
An example of a non-refillable dispensing bottle not developed for use in dispensing systems is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,747,498 (Gach). A dispensing bottle, such as the one disclosed by Gach in '498 may be as simple as a bottle fitted with a non-removable closure that has a dispensing orifice in the closure top. The container neck terminates in an annular end wall having a plurality of circumferentially spaced teeth that lock the cap to the container, preventing refilling.
Another way to prevent the refilling and reuse of a refill bottle designed to fit into a particular dispenser is to make the closure on the bottle break or distort if pried from the bottle opening. The theory is that if the closure is distorted or even broken in some way, it won't fit back on the bottle neck opening and thus the refilled bottle cannot be used in the dispenser, particularly if the bottle has to be inverted for use in the dispenser and is dependent on an intact seal between the bottle neck and the closure. Some examples of non-replaceable closures appear in the patent literature. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,284,265 (Crisci) discloses a non-replaceable snap cap for school milk bottles, (outside of the context of dispensing systems). Once a tear skirt is peeled away, a sealing flange is also removed preventing replacement of the cap on the milk bottle. Additionally, a “self-destructing” closure for use on an inverted refill bottle is disclosed in PCT Application Publication No. WO 2010/055313 (Padain, et al.). As best seen in FIG. 8 of the '313 application, frangible members 29 are designed to break if the cap is pried off from the bottle neck. When these members 29 break, the collar configured to snap over the bottle neck falls apart, and there is no way to fit the closure back onto the bottle opening. Since the bottle cannot be sealed again by the dispensing cap, it cannot be inverted in the dispenser, thus discouraging consumer refilling.
Another way that could prevent the refilling of refill bottles, and one that has not been explored to date, is to configure a closure to destruct in such a way that the bottle remains sealed yet the refill bottle no longer fits into the complementary dispenser.
Accordingly, it is desirable to invent new ways to configure tamper-proof closures for refill bottles such that any tampering by the end user destroys the complementary engagement of the closure with the dispenser, but does not expose the end user to the remaining liquid in the refill bottle. That is, it is desirable to design a closure that self-destructs in such a way that the seal on the neck of the bottle remains undisturbed, yet the refill bottle can no longer be used in the complementary dispenser. This would be an important innovation for dispensing systems that dispense highly caustic and/or corrosive liquids from refill bottles, where human contact with the liquid would present a safety hazard. Other desirable features and characteristics of the present invention will become apparent from the subsequent detailed description of the invention and the appended claims, taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings and this background of the invention.